Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday July 01, 2011 @05:42PM
from the let's-call-it-facetime dept.

tekgoblin writes "Facebook will be launching a new in-browser video chat application. 'The product has been built on Skype and will include a desktop component. It’s not clear to me whether that means it will just work if a user has Skype already installed on the computer, or if additional software will need to be downloaded even if the user already uses Skype. But it’s clear that there’s very deep integration between the products, and from the user’s perspective, the product will be an in-browser experience.'"

Google isn't really a competitor to Facebook. However, Facebook is a competitor to Google, as now people spend lots of time on Facebook and find all kinds of interesting links and stuff there, and maybe even use Facebook's search instead of Google. (yes, I know we techies don't do that, but we're a minority)

What comes to Google+, it's quite far from competitor to Facebook. It just misses so much stuff. There isn't any of those games, apps, fan pages, events.. Maybe some of them will be added to Google+, b

Then they would had released the thing finished, not in an early beta. Especially so if they still are thinking of adding major features to get users to move from Facebook. And they wouldn't have capacity problems to handle those even those few early users. Come on, they run Google and YouTube and several other huge sites after all.

But you know, we have seen this route before. Orkut was supposed to be this too - it didn't work out. Even started with the same kind of limited invites. Google Talk was suppos

Beta means nothing with Google. Everyone should know that by now. When they announce something going beta, it's pretty much same as going live and they will either improve it over time or forget it (and in some cases completely discontinue offering the service).

I seriously wonder the slashdot group think mentality about this. Usually in these Facebook stories people talk about how they lose their privacy and privacy settings on Facebook are hard to use and most are on by default. You guess what, when I si

I think the main issue with Facebook, or at least mine personally, is that when I started using Facebook a few years ago, I made myself completely private. I was invisible in searches, friend lists, everything. Unless I added you as a friend, you had no idea that I had a Facebook profile. The only reason I really had a Facebook profile was to keep in touch with close friends who've moved cross country or overseas, so this worked well for me.

for people who really do value their privacy (me) and want to use the service, we'll forever be screwed by their ever changing garbage "updates" and changes without prior notice.

Well, you could do what I did... sign up for Facebook using an alias. Yup, my Slashdot username is also the same as my Facebook ID. I just tell the 3 or 4 people that want to keep in touch with me on Facebook what my made-up name is. Now they know it's me.

I've never had to fiddle with any facebook privacy settings, I just leave them all on default.

Then they would had released the thing finished, not in an early beta. Especially so if they still are thinking of adding major features to get users to move from Facebook.

I've used google+ and it doesn't feel like a beta at all. Everything just worked as expected, the UI is great. And its the only out of the box working group video chat for Linux I know of. Plus some extra gimmicks like watching YouTube "together." It is correct that there isn't much you can do on google+ but does it need more "major features"? I've got no idea what they plan to do but what features could it need? Maybe some gardening game? Think of twitter, featurewise its near to nothing and still people s

As long as FB has those shitty clickfest "games' then Google is SOL. I have actually had folks come into the shop and buy a PC around those stupid games, folks are addicted to Mafia Wars and Farmville/Frontierville like someone on warcrack. I even had to keep a late model P4 at my apt just so when my GF comes over she can have her morning Farmville fix without waking me up.

So give it up Google if you don't get Zynga on board. Maybe Google ought to just buy them out? because while we geeks hate the things

You mean like they will realize they can use Usenet for grouped discussions, IRC for real-time discussions, email for sending pictures of their holiday or latest party and install Exchange server for scheduling and calendar services? Both Facebook and Google+ are doomed!

I get your point, hyperbolic as it is, but it's not like people don't realize that there are other websites outside of Facebook.

The things you mention? That's what social networks are for. Connecting with people, all in one place. How do games fit in to that picture? Surely you're not arguing that people enjoy automated and impersonal Farmville spam from friends.

Moves like this, making their site more clunky are what is going to drive people to Google+. When Facebook started they were lean and mean (at least compared to MySpace). They seem to have forgotten this philosophy of simplicity and are simply trying to cram as many bells and whistles as they can into their site.

What the hell does Facebook's game have to do with a video chat feature in the IM function? Both will probably function about the same - it opens a video chat when you request it from the chat window or profile. In fact, Google+ seems to be promoting the video feature A LOT. I signed up for an account today and there was all over things like "Have some fun and start a group video chat session with your circles!" and various other usages to promote the video features. At least Facebooks version will most lik

Actually I was not aware of that, although after thinking about it, it is pretty obvious that it would have the same functionality currently built into Talk. I'm going to withhold judgment until I can play around with the site and measure load times. If Google+ is anything like GMail or Voice then I would expect it to blow Facebook out of the water.

I don't know about that. They've also made great strides in removing clutter from their interface. There are features that only appear when you mouse-over them, "submit" buttons can be turned off, there are fewer page refreshes and "endless scrolling" is enabled on many pages, etc.

It's irrelevant what google+ has right now because the service is not open to the public and doesn't have critical mass yet. What facebook is doing is co-opting every single decent feature google+ has before google has a chance to launch it. By the time google gets their act together and rolls it out to everybody, facebook will have made the whole service moot. And that's a real shame for google. Google should have kept the field trial very small (google employees + family) and then launched it for everyone

People tend to have their family and close friends added in Facebook, though. So if they suddenly get the ability to video chat with them there conveniently, why not? The point here, I think, is to attract Facebook users to Skype, not Skype users to Facebook.

Facebook will be launching a new in-browser toilet application. 'The product has been built on a toilet and will include a desktop component. Itâ(TM)s not clear to me whether that means it will just work if a user has a toilet already, or if additional work will need to be done in the house even if the user already uses a toilet. But itâ(TM)s clear that thereâ(TM)s very deep integration between the products, and from the userâ(TM)s perspective, the product will be an in-browser experienc

So Skype allows group of text-only for their free accounts. Group video chat requires that everyone be a Skype subscriber to get access. Will this limitation continue?

Google+ allows group video chat (Hangouts) up to 10 people for free, though there is no mobile support yet.

Also, I'm uncertain of what Google's back-end architecture is (looks like it's P2P also, using XMPP Jingle, but I don't know the details of this tech). Skype uses supernodes to connect people together, which is really a P2P technology. Since any person running a skype client that is not behind NAT can act as a supernode, connection quality on skype calls can easily vary.

So Skype allows group of text-only for their free accounts. Group video chat requires that everyone be a Skype subscriber to get access. Will this limitation continue?

Only one participant needs to be a subscriber (otherwise lack of network effect would make this worthless). I make regular group calls with skype, and we've tried the group video call as well. The bigger problem is that video conferences with 3+ participants don't really seem to work acceptably, with audio and video coming and going and participants being dropped... If the google version works (and I plan to try it out next week as soon as my new fancy webcam arrives), that will make more difference to me t

They already have a large user base, they already have fb chat, if they create a new product maybe they could kill skype and take their business(e.g. call to landlines for pay subscribers).
And if they allow people to connect with XMPP we have a multiplatform video chat.

Well, now Facebook is face-to-face. So Facebook has evolved into Facebook. It's also getting awfully bloated with needless this and that. There must be a point where a centralized social networking service collapses under the weight of features that must eventually be spread out across the web. Mid 90's everybody on AOL jumped ship when the realized the same stuff was on the web, only spread out across a better and wide open landscape. It seems like Facebook is running headlong into it's own demise. It is

Well, taking a chapter out of the Stephen A. Ballmer book of software engineering, something like this:

1. Ignore the core products of your technology because "they work, why do they need any more upkeep?"
2. Potential competitor comes out with product or feature that everyone seems to like
3. "GODDAMIT WHY DIDNT WE THINK OF THAT MAKE THAT NOW GO GO GO!"
4. Show up late to the party with a half-assed implementation of said product or feature that doesn't really catch on
5. Lather, rinse, repeat.

By the time Google+ launches to the public, facebook will have implemented every decent feature that Google+ has. I think google is making a mistake by not launching the site any time soon- it will never gain critical mass if facebook is given the opportunity to copy it. Not that this is a bad thing for the market place, because the consumer will benefit from facebook's upgrades. But this does nothing but hurt google's chances for success.

... could now also ad "value advertising" to your phone calls. You ring a friend, talk about something and suddenly a commercial is played "Did you also know that 3509 of your friends also like that product?".